While we wish to see Election Fraud ferreted out and destroyed wherever it rears its ugly head, the GOP was dealt a setback in the current trial in Washington state where GOP sore losers are attempting to unseat Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire after a razor-thin margin last November. The Judge in the case has ruled --- to the chagrin of the crybaby GOP conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat wearers --- that fraud is not at issue in the current case.

Nonetheless, beyond that, two things strike us of interest in this case.

1) The unmitigated determination displayed by the GOP to fight for the accurate counting and accounting of every vote. We only wish the DNC showed as much moxie in fighting for what was likely theirs (the Presidency). And...

The county's records show at least 875 more absentee ballots were counted than voters were credited with casting, [GOP Attorney] Foreman said. But while many precincts reported more ballots than voters, others reported more voters than ballots.

Those discrepancies should have been distributed randomly among the candidates, but two of the three most strongly pro-Rossi precincts lost votes, while the two most strongly pro-Gregoire precincts gained votes, Foreman said.

The GOP will establish in the trial how that pattern defies probability, Foreman said.

"The evidence will show partisan bias," he said. "And partisan bias is a very politically correct way of saying, 'Somebody stuffed the ballot box.'"

Sound familiar?

Of course, if that attempted legal argument was employed in Ohio and the other swing states, all of which went to Bush despite astronomically impossible statistical odds against it, the GOP's illegitimate "President" would not currently be occupying the White House.

Too bad Democrats don't fight for what's rightfully theirs as ardently as Republicans do. And, unlike Republicans, they wouldn't even have to lie and make stuff up to do it! Merely showing up for the game would likely suffice!

Not only that, but also this regarding the filibuster so-called victory:

This is a comment on the outcome of the "compromise" in the Senate over judicial nominations. C. Clark Kissinger is one of the initiators of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience who, along with Joan Bokaer (Founder of Theocracy Watch.org) and others, called for people to protest the threatened "nuclear option":

"After all the bluster and shadow boxing was over, President Bush got his way. Under the terms of a "compromise," three of Bush's worst nominees will be voted on and they will likely be confirmed. And what did the Democrats get in return? They got to keep the right to filibuster, provided they promise not to use it!

"That's right. The Democrats got nothing. And what will happen when even more disgusting candidates are brought up as nominees for the Supreme Court? The Republicans will simply roll out the threat of the "nuclear option" once again, since nothing in the so-called "compromise" prohibits them from doing that.

"Once again this demonstrates the need for a mass popular movement of resistance. Without the kind of mass upsurge that we witnessed in the 1960s, there is nothing that will prevent the current threatening dynamic from continuing. This is why we called on people to go to Washington, and make their presence felt in the streets. The world can't wait any longer. We need to be about the business of driving the Bush regime from power."

If the Washington case is decided in favor of the Republicans then that would set a precedent which could be used by Democrats to challenge other elections where exit polls and other anomalies were obvious.

If the case is decided in favor of the Democrats then there's no precedent, but the Dem governor stays.

Brad, have you materialized that evidence you claimed to possess regarding 100K civilian casualities in Iraq? Still waiting... prepared to tolerate endless 'but' 'but' 'but' and other diversionary tactics since you won't come up with anything.

Praetorian - You think you sound clever - in fact, you sound like an under-twenty something, who was poorly raised. The evidence concerning the 100,000+ dead Iraqis, mostly civilians, was posted here many months ago. You can go find it your "rude" self. You could also try the website, antiwar.com. It was also posted there, as it was posted at numerous other websites, and in foreign newspapers. I have spent a great deal of time listening to Brad, who makes a great deal of sense, and as little time as possible reading your childish nonsense. As you continue to spend time here, please be assured you will either be ignored, or blasted when someone has the time or inclination, each time you enter such ignorant posts. Your insults smack of JEALOUSY. You are envious...can't accomplish anything yourself? Why don't you try demolition; it's right down your alley. You just thrash about and make loud noises. Construction is obviously beyond your abilities. Destruction is easy...any fool can do that. The art, science and hard work is in construction and creativity. You've chosen your trade, and I have no respect for it!

Peggy, like others here, you seem incapable of grasping such a simple concept as verifiable proof. The sources you use in an attempt to give credibility to this 100K fantasy are all questionable at best. To date, no one has provided any concrete evidence as to such a ridiculously inflated casualty assessment. Under 20? No. Back to the point - perhaps if you (and Brad for that matter) would actually have any first-hand knowledge of Iraq - as in actually having ever stepped foot within its borders - you would likely have a better idea of just how badly (and I place great emphasis on 'badly') you are all being lied to. As for spelling, you sorely underestimate the value that proper spelling brings to both the author and his or her readers - something Brad will never have.

we've been praetorianed
attorney jimed
zappa is dead thank goded
znak and chined
152.163.100.74ed
HH and natkingcolelovered
Junked and Zinked
Sharkey and Findbradanangeled
Giggler and Editor at Oviedo Voiced
Yup and Grupped
American patrioted and the arrested

Zappa, nobody here wants to hurt the troops.
If I were to personally kill, I would need justification so I'd be able to sleep at night.

Justifications? Yes, justification.
Another country declares war on us, another country invades us (and don't pull that tired old false Iraq Al Queda shit here), a genocide is occurring (Rwanda? Sudan? What the hell are we doing in Iraq?)

You are asking us to lie to ourselves and to the public so that our troops can rationalize their existence there, not justify. Big difference.

Believe what you want to believe, that's your choice. But the truth won't stop.

"A hundred thousand Iraqi dead were recently buried — on page five. Bear with me. I think we need to dig them up.

I’m haunted, you might say, by a relentless optimism that if enough Americans could just notice that number, let it gnaw at the margins of their conscience — long enough to say, “Come again? How many? A hundred thousand?” — something would give, somewhere, in the mandate George Bush claims he has to “bring freedom to the world,” at a price cruel beyond reckoning to the recipients.

A hundred thousand.

The story came out just before the election. Ours, I mean. Maybe the timing was bad. Media skeptics and Bush supporters cried foul. Scientists are trying to influence the outcome with, harrumph, facts. Yeah, fat chance. Anyway, the story had a short shelf life and zero impact. A couple days later, we leveled Fallujah.

In case you missed it, here’s what happened: During the month of September, a team of Iraqi and American investigators talked to some 8,000 people from nearly 1,000 households in every region of the country, asking how many family members had died both before and after the invasion. They were led by Les Roberts, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University with extensive experience researching war-related mortality. He has worked in eight war zones; in the past, his findings have had significant policy and humanitarian impact.

The electrifying results of the Iraq study, that the civilian death toll is far higher than previous estimates, were published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed British medical journal Lancet, and since it came many scientists have verified the validity of the researchers’ methodology. The study’s only incorrectness is political."

Has anyone told the Washington GOP that it would take a massive conspiracy to do this? That it would take both Republicans and Democrats, from the Sec. of State on down to the lowly poll worker, all acting in a huge diabolical conspiracy to pull this off? And with bipartisan elections boards, that's impossible!

So what can you do but just laugh at it? Maybe the GOP will say the Purple Martion invaders did it.

---------------------------
So that's what it's like to be a freeper. Yuk. I think I need to shower.

I second that..Wa. lawsuit would be a good thing. dems. have stolen elections too, but not on the current grand scale. If we had honest elections and honest media, maybe we could get the kind of dems. in office who wouldn't need to steal. After all, if we weren't propping up a huge war machine and major graft, there would be enough money left over so people could get benefits from their taxws.

the only time a 100k iraqis were buried was when they all fell into the same graves in groups after being shot by the former dictators henchmen... did you read that? "former..." think about why he's the former dictator... if you deny getting rid of hussein was worthwhile, then i'd love to hear your arguments for appeasement of hitler

WP #20 There you go again - quoting experts in their field who have extensive experience in doing what they do.

But these scientists point out that over 100,000 Iraqi babies, children, young girls, women, boys and men have died in the holy war our god-led leader is gloriously and triumphantly executing.

It is fine to use expert data WP - so long as the facts they come up with support our wonderful president and his tireless and honorable staff.

These scientists do a wonderful job when they support what the exalted president and his enlightened followers are doing to bring peace, justice, and the american way to the world.

However these scientists drop to unpatriotic levels when their work undermines this presidential light from above.

Please cease from citing these scientists unless they support the worthy words from on presidential high, because after all the good things the president has done for america in the eyes of the world, deserve only the best of science.

Please do not offend our dearest president with these scientific styled facts and data, nor his trollies here - cause that is a no no.

This is not going to make me popular around here, I know. I'm with the majority here on all of the issues, but that 100,000 figure has always bothered me. The original report from which that number was taken concluded that the 95% confidence interval for the number of casualties was [8000, 188,000] (I'm going from memory on the numbers here - I'll try to check on them later). That's a HUGE interval.... meaning that the study was essentially inconclusive. Granted, the oft-used 100,000 figure could be an underestimate, but it's entirely possible that there were only 10,000 casualties instead. I still maintain that the invasion was illegal, immoral, and unwise, but throwing the 100,000 figure around does not help our credibility.

Of course, if there was a follow-up study which had more specific conclusions, please let me know - apparently I missed it.

As a resident of Washington State, I can tell you some rather strange things going on in this election.

WHEN DINO ROSSI WAS AHEAD BY 261 VOTES IN THE ORIGINAL COUNT, AND AGAIN BY 42 VOTES IN THE MACHINE RECOUNT, HE SAID THAT THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN AND THAT CHRIS GREGOIRE SHOULD CONCEDE THE RACE IMMEDIATELY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE RECOUNT SWUNG THE RACE TO CHRIS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE VOTERS DID NOT SPEAK. RATHER, THERE WAS TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE FRAUD IN THE ELECTION AND A NEW ELECTION SHOULD TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATELY.

I hope the Democrats learn how to truly challenge an election like that.

Curiously, though, if the Republicans win the court battle and the ensuing state Supreme Court appeal, then Rossi would still not take over the Governor's Mansion. It would then go to Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, a moderate Democrat.

For Mr. BlueSky: If what we want here is honest elections, if we want those who commit fraud to be exposed and punished, and we want those candidates who steal elections to not take office and/or be removed from office, then I respectfully submit that whether Dino Rossi is a neo-con or a moderate, and what Christine Gregoire is or isn't, are irrelevancies.

All politicians (with a handful of exceptions like John Conyers, and maybe Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone) think elections are about OUTCOMES. They care about WINNING. If they lose, and can't immediately prove they should have won, they begin thinking about WINNING NEXT TIME, not about the fact that the election process might have been corrupted. The voters have lost, but most politicians of both parties couldn't care less about that...because they're thinking about themselves.

How many times did we hear Kerry say, "There weren't enough votes to change the result in Ohio?"
He had no clue whether there were or were not, but he couldn't prove fraud immediately, so he quit and began planning for 2008. The country lost, because people's votes weren't counted, others were flipped, and the G.O.P. got away with fraud.

At the risk of being repetitive...let the Washington lawsuit go the limit. I hope it goes to the United States Supreme Court, in fact. I have no clue who the better governor would be, wouldn't hazard a guess as to who really won, and don't care much who is more liberal or more conservative out there.

But I'm willing to bet that a prolonged argument in the courts about election fraud, and exit polls, and statistical incongruities will force the media (and maybe even John Kerry!) to retroactively apply those same criteria to the stolen 2004 election. In court, there are no conspiracy theorists; there are only lawyers, a jury, and a judge...and no judge
worth the name will allow theories as evidence.

Peg C #18 you say I am a "crazy" man ... such a "political" statement dear lady. The beatniks used to say "crazy man" to indicate goodness ... while to others it can mean you get locked up til they make you "better" ...

you say I am "good,too" ... crazy baby ...

As to your question "How did you DO that?", it is a takeoff from Kira's post:

I been Norman Mailered, Maxwell Taylored.
I been John O'Hara'd, McNamara'd.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I welcome the Republican lawsuit in Washington State.

If fraud was committed by both sides, the process of examination and cross-examination should expose it. Sure, Republicans are hypocrites to use the same arguments there that they deny to Democrats elsewhere...but most people already know politicians are hypocritical. They read Scott McClellan's crap every day, after all.

What most people don't know is how far the Republicans went to steal Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico (in the interest of full disclosure, the Democrats might have stolen Wisconsin). The point is...THE MORE THAT COMES OUT ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD, REGARDLESS OF WHO COMMITTED IT, THE GREATER THE CHANCE THE GEORGE W. BUSH WILL BE EXPOSED AS A FRAUDULENT PRESIDENT.

If the Washington gubernatorial outcome is overturned in court (not likely to happen), it will be headline news in every newspaper. The Democratic Party (so far curiously silent about election fraud) will not be able to dodge the issue any longer. The press would have to report any shift of emphasis by Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton...and John Kerry.
Al Gore would reappear. The Clint Curtis affidavit would make the mainstream media at last. Ray Lemme's murder would be covered.

I think that figure of 100,000 is probably close to the mark (as of 7 months ago, around the time the study came out...). From a survey of almost 1,000 households (about the same number as a typical US political poll). Most of the deaths were atributed to aerial bombings - which we are doing a lot more than you likely think we are.

At the time, I believe that the website www.iraqbodycount.net (IBC) was reporting around 15,000 to 17,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (from memory). IBC is currently reporting about 22,000 to 25,000 civilian deaths.

IBC says:
"each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths."

Most of the uncertainty in the IBC figures comes from whether the Iraqi's killed are civilian or combatants. So in the latest figures, there are a total of about 3,000 Iraqi's where it is not clear if they were combatants or not. IBC also says that the number of actual deaths is probably much much higher than the number of confirmed dead that are in their count.

So if you multiply IBCs numbers by several fold, you get a number close to 100,000. I think the 2 reports roughly agree. I think any reasonable person would have to agree that whatever IBC is reporting (currently, up to 25,000 deaths), the real figure is much higher.

the last time so many Iraqis died, it was when they revolted after the first gulf war, when Bush 41 told them he'd back them up. Iraqis revolted. Bush did nothing, and Iraqis got slaughtered.

What's your point anyway? OK, maybe 100,000 haven't been killed. Maybe it's only triple IBC's figure of 25,000 CONFIRMED kills, making it about 75,000. Does that make you happy? ONLY 75,000 deaths? Imagine filling every seat of 2 major stadiums with all the corpses.

Can YOU provide any data to knock down IBCs figures? I don't think so. So shut the f--- up.

To argue about the actual death toll in Iraq is like arguing over how many people died in the Black Plague. The difference being, of course, that in the 14th century nobody was killing people on purpose.

If even one person died as the result of an illegal invasion predicated on fraudulent intelligence, it's a crime against humanity. And that fact will still resonate in the 28th century C.E.

Please, indulge me for a mere moment while I quickly comment on the significant increase in trolling of late, here and elsewhere.

I'm considering making it the subject of a major thesis and would like to forward a few postulations:

The omnipresence of a certain "ATTY jimmo"-slash-ad nauseum-o-nym in the blogosphere, STILL spewing inane vitriol after all this time, across so many venues, clearly demonstrates a level of ignorance and self-hatred rarely exhibited.

In other terms: "wow!...has someone finally mastered the art of full cranial-rectal inversion (and willing to display it to the public) or is (s)he simply being paid?"

I'm torn...Just trying to wrap my mind around the seemingly physical impossibility of true and long-lasting inversion (how do you breath? You can only eat your own shit for so long!) leads me to think that the the only possible explanaion is that the troll is paid.

The spine, even when completely limp, simply doesn't allow for such a lengthy insertion.

I'm reasonably certain that the irony escapes the troll that her/his rants serve only to reinforce certain already pre-established FACTS (such as: wingnads are servile, myopic, and enjoy masturbating to artist renderings of the Michael Jackson trial), and yet somehow simultaneously disprove other long-held truthisms (such as: it's just not possible for anyone to physically lodge their head in their ass THAT far and for THAT long)

Mills #32 - I am in complete agreement. Let any and all fraudsters on BOTH sides be exposed for the criminals they are!

The temptation to engage in election fraud will always be enormous. Unless we fully investigate ALL allegations and indications that election fraud may have occured, the problem will grow with each election.

You think 2004 was bad? Considering the press and public's almost complete disinterest in investing 2004, 2006 will be worse. Hopefully, at some point the scale will tip. Please let that point be today!

re Skinny #41 Yes they get paid. The going rate is $5 per post. Of course it's illegal but of course they don't care about that. Somebody posted a link here a while ago to an article explaining the setup but I can't find it at the moment.

What I want to know --- and maybe praetorian (or jimmo in yet another disguise) can tell us --- is this: Do you still get paid even if your comments get deleted?

Skinny: Look at it this way. Some people go to a bar, get boozed up, and start arguments...which aren't really arguments so much as back and forth invective with some other drunk at the bar.

Now, if you were eating at the adjoining restaurant, would you get up from your seat to join the drunks in their debate? Or would you decide, "I'm not lowering myself to their level," and stay put?

These trolls write the way Bush talks, ignorantly and stridently. On the rare occasions that they put two sentences together, the logic is inchoate. Or they digress into irrelevancies, like typos. In other words, Skinny, they're like drunks and school children. Why waste your time worrying about their motives, or whether they get $5 a posting from Karl Rove?